reply on: Responding to the quantum threat to bitcoin

pull down to refresh

79 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 16 Apr \ parent \ on: Responding to the quantum threat to bitcoin - @lightcoin bitcoin

what do you mean about the bridge idea not being a permanent solution?

It fractures, so when it is needed, without a PQ solution on L1, how are you going to exit the bridge to, say, open a lightning channel? How is LN going to function at all? How do I send sats to someone on another bridge? And so on, and so on.

So the bridge is imho a stopgap measure, not a permanent fix.

79 sats \ 1 reply \ @anon 17 Apr

without a PQ solution on L1

the post says PQ signatures on L1 are one of the items in scope

How do I send sats to someone on another bridge?

presumably using something like Boltz, or going through L1

1 sat \ 0 replies \ @optimism 17 Apr

I understand this, and I think that the bridge makes sense if the only protective workaround available on "Q-day" are extremely bloaty signature schemes. I really think that that would be an engineering failure on L1 though, because even the stateful schemes provide imho a better tradeoff than using OP_CAT to protect the masses (which, how I understand it, is also stateful); the mempool pressure would be insane, even with bridges.

So that's why I'm saying could-have. It can work as a hedge against the worst case scenario, but it shouldn't be the solution that says: "yo we can chill now, all is taken care of".

I'm still in favor of GSR, and still in favor of P2MR. Just I want to be extremely cautious about what we label a solution and what we label a workaround.